On 06/04/15 18:45, Ned Freed wrote: >> My point is only that if we want to debate the appropriate mechanisms >> to put in place to protect the privacy of access to public IETF >> information, then let's not do that based on the FTP corner case, but >> by considering the general question. > > And I quite simply disagree with this approach. I think FTP provides an > interesting test case and context under which to consider the more > general question. Really? I honestly don't get why FTP is at all "interesting" from the privacy of access POV. Can you explain? In my head, how to appropriately setup privacy friendly defaults for http is much more interesting (and by "appropriate" I do include maybe keeping some form of cleartext access, perhaps no longer as default, but that'd have to be figured out). >> But the pattern of >> seeing exaggerated claims as to what the "other" side is saying is >> one that we also saw in the 7258 last call. I just think repeating >> those canards again is pointless. > > You might want to reread what you wrote here and think for a minute about just > how dismissive and condesending it sounds to someone who was on the "other" > side of that debate. I guess it might. If so, sorry. But actually I was including those on my "side" of the argument too - so far I've only seen repeat arguments here from all perspectives. But maybe I'm missing something specific to FTP and your answer to the question above will help, Cheers, S. > > Ned >